7.3.1 Why are metrics needed?
There are many reasons to measure. ITIL V3 Continual Service Improvement identifies four reasons. Although they were mainly intended for IT services improvement globally, they are equally applicable to specific practice improvement too and, therefore, to IT financial management. These reasons are:
• to validate – monitoring and measuring to validate previous decisions
• to direct – monitoring and measuring to set direction for activities in order to meet set targets. It is the most prevalent reason for monitoring and measuring
• to justify – monitoring and measuring to justify, with factual evidence or proof, that a course of action is required
• to intervene – monitoring and measuring to identify a point of intervention including subsequent changes and corrective actions
Brooks, Van Bon and Verheijen have identified another set of valuable reasons:
• metrics provide the instrumentation necessary to control an organization
• metrics make it easier to concentrate on important matters
• well presented metrics make it easy to spot danger in time to correct it
• metrics can improve morale in an organization
• metrics can stimulate healthy competition between process owners
• metrics help to align IT with business goals.
As an example to show how metrics can provide the instrumentation to control IT financial management, in section 6.3.2 we have seen the use of KPIs in a Balanced Scorecard to give meaningful comprehension of the situation and of how well the objectives are being achieved.
7.3.2 Who should be responsible and who should use metrics
Since metrics are designed to allow an organization to control, it is important that somebody is responsible for each metric. This means controlling the status and trend of a metric and taking action when necessary.
We can distinguish between metrics related to the financial performance of the services provided (their costs, revenues) and metrics related to the performance of the IT financial management function and processes. IT service management managers should be owners of the metrics related to service performances. Service owners (accountable for a specific service, as introduced in ITIL V3 Continual Service Improvement) are usually the most appropriate owners for metrics specific to services (at least in Scenario 1 and 2, while in Scenario 3 the situation can be much more articulated, e.g. for the presence of a sales force). The metrics for overall IT costs and revenues are
typically owned by the IT manager while IT financial management performance related metrics should be owned by the roles identified in chapter 5, in particular the IT financial manager and IT financial controllers. However, especially for Scenario 1, in some cases owners can also be identified in the financial department (e.g. controllers).
Metrics have no value if they are not actually used. The owner is not the only individual interested in them and there should be proper communication according to the different needs of recipients:
IT management, process and service managers and staff.
IT management (management in Scenario 3) strives to align IT with business needs and takes decisions. Metrics should support these tasks: they should be clear (understanding should be immediate), comprehensive (the level of detail should be appropriate to the recipient’s needs;
management is generally interested in high level KPIs although providing drill-down navigation of figures is recommended), relevant (only KPIs which are of interest to the recipients should be provided), timely (warnings and alerts should be communicated as soon as they occur; anticipated trends analysis should provide early warnings) and reliable (information should be accurate).
Managers in IT service management will usually receive a mix of metrics – that is, metrics about the financial performance of services together with metrics about SLAs. A Balanced Scorecard helps to provide management control.
Service and process managers should, as a minimum, receive the metrics they own. They will want to receive an explanation of what has already occurred and to take corrective action if required;
they should be strongly committed in order to anticipate trends and make proactive decisions.
The IT financial manager is one of these managers and he/she is likely to be the owner of many of the specific metrics identified in section 7.3. Again, metrics should be clear, comprehensive, relevant, timely and reliable. A specific Balanced Scorecard for the IT financial management function, such as the one illustrated in 6.3.2, is a good example of the use of metrics.
All other members of the IT department need to understand what the process metrics, KPIs and SLAs are, especially those applying to their own area of activity. Staff should be aware of their meaning and of their trend and should actively contribute to improvements. In some cases, this can be achieved by linking metrics to rewards against the achievement of target results.
7.3.3 Which metrics?
In this section, we will explore in detail some typical metrics for IT financial management activities, which can be used in the internal perspective of a Balanced Scorecard. Although metrics have been tuned and designed for the activities described in Chapter 4, many can be used in any context. Metrics will be illustrated on a per activity basis (see Chapter 4, in particular Figure 4.1, for the reference model).
For each metric, the following information will be detailed:
• name – name of KPI
• description – a description of the KPI
• basis for computation – this describes the scope of the KPI
• frequency of usage – this information gives the typical frequency of utilization (when the KPI is calculated and reported)
• polarity – this information gives the appropriate trend (positive vs. negative) when applicable
• comments – any further useful information about the KPI under examination
The information is organized in a table for each metric. The tables with blue backgrounds show metrics that measure efficiency; the tables with red backgrounds show metrics that measure effectiveness of the practices.
7.3.4 Metrics for IT financial management implementation
These metrics give evidence of the status of adoption of IT financial management practices.
Name Number of services/projects managed
Description This is the absolute number of services/projects managed with IT financial management practices.
Basis for computation Projects and services that have been active during the observation period.
Formula Count of the number of services/projects managed according to IT financial management services.
Polarity Positive
Name Percentage of services/projects managed
Description This is the percentage of services/projects managed with IT financial management practices.
Basis for computation Projects and services that have been active during the observation period.
Formula (# Services/Projects managed according to ITFM processes) × 100 (# Service/Projects)
Polarity Positive
7.3.5 Investment evaluation
Name Number of investment evaluations Description This is the number of evaluations performed.
Basis for computation Annual budget or n months rolling.
Formula # of investment evaluations performed
Polarity Positive.
Name Percentage of services/projects evaluated
Description This KPI gives evidence of the percentage of new or significantly changed services/
projects formally evaluated.
Basis for computation Annual budget or n months rolling.
Formula (# of new or changed/projects evaluated through process × 100 (# of new or changed services/projects)
Polarity Positive.
Name Activity costs percentage
Description This measures the costs of the investment evaluation activity, compared to the value evaluation required.
Basis for computation Annual budget or n months rolling.
Formula Costs of all evalutions performed × 100 Costs of all services/projects evaluated Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Average evaluation lead time
Description This is the time needed to perform an evaluation (from request to official results available).
Basis for computation All the evaluations performed in the annual budget or n months rolling.
Formula Σ (Time of availability of results – time of request) # of evaluations performed
Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Percentage of post evaluations
Description This measures the number of new/changed services/projects with a post implementation review (PIR). The post implementation review does not necessarily include an evaluation of returns of investments.
Basis for computation All new or significantly changed services/projects closed in an annual budget or n months rolling.
Formula (# of new or significantly changed services/projects with PIR) (# of new or significantly changed services/projects) × 100
Polarity Positive.
Comment This KPI may be modified to use other investment evaluation techniques (e.g. Internal Rate of Return).
Name Accuracy of evaluations
Description This measures the accuracy of performed evaluations in terms of ratio between the returns beforehand and afterwards
Basis for computation All evaluated services/projects closed relative to annual budget or n months rolling.
Formula Sum of effective ROI × 100 Sum of planned ROI
Polarity Positive.
Comment This KPI may be modified to use other investment evaluation techniques (e.g. Internal Rate of Return).
Name Percentage of success
Description This measures the percentage of evaluated services/projects that are achieving the target, which could be the forecasted ROI or IRR.
Basis for computation All evaluated services/projects closed relative to annual budget or n months rolling.
Formula # of evaluated services/projects achieving target # of evaluated services/projects × 100
Polarity Positive.
Comment This KPI may be modified to use other investment evaluation techniques (e.g. Internal Rate of Return). Care should be taken as positive performances of some services/projects may compensate negatively for others (a possible solution is to ignore positive results).
7.3.6 Metrics for budgeting Annual budget
Name Percentage of budget managed
Description This is the percentage of the overall IT organization budget managed according to IT financial management practices.
Basis for computation All initiatives (projects and services) included in the annual budget.
Formula Budget of Services/Projects managed according to ITFM processes (Budget of Services/Projects) × 100
Polarity Positive
Name Percentage of budgets on time
Description This is the percentage of budgets of services/projects that have been defined by the given initial deadline. This measures the project manager’s or service owner’s performances.
Basis for computation All services/projects included in budget and managed according to IT financial management practices.
Formula (# of services/projects budgeted on time) (# of services/projects) × 100
Polarity Positive.
Name Number of reviews
Description This is the number of unplanned budget reviews performed.
Basis for computation Duration of budget year.
Formula Number of unplanned reviews performed.
Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Initial variance
Description This is the percentage deviation between the first suggested budget and the approved budget. It gives evidence of the quality of input data and guidelines.
Basis for computation All costs included in budgets (initial and/or approved).
Formula (Initial Suggested Budget – Approved Budget ) (Approved Budget) × 100 Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Comment This KPI should be applied separately to costs and revenues. When relevant events occur, deriving from the context (such as change of economics trends) or unforeseen circumstances (such as new rules in GAAP applications or capitalizing policies), this KPI may become no longer applicable, because the variance no longer indicates the quality of the activity.
Name Approval cycles
Description This is the number of cycles performed to approve the budget (internal to IT management).
Basis for computation Time from official budget start to final approval.
Formula Number of approval cycles executed.
Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Delay in budget presentation
Description This is the delay (days) between the scheduled date of budget presentation for approval and actual presentation date. This measure is an important aspect of effectiveness of the activity.
Basis for computation Annual budget activity.
Formula Date of actual budget presentation – Scheduled date of budget presentation.
Polarity Negative (diminishing). When relevant events occur, deriving from the context (such as change of economics trends) or unforeseen circumstances (such as new rules in GAAP applications or capitalizing policies), this KPI may become not applicable, because the variance is no longer indicating the quality of the activity.
Name Percentage of costs apportioned automatically
Description This measures the percentage of costs that are automatically apportioned to services/projects.
Basis for computation Services/projects budgeted in an annual budget.
Formula (budgeted costs automatically apportioned to services/projects) (budgeted costs apportioned to services/projects) × 100
Polarity Positive.
Name Acitivity costs percentage
Description This measures the costs of the budgeting activity, compared to those of the managed budget. This is an important aspect of efficiency.
Basis for computation Annual budget.
Formula Costs of annual budgeting process Costs included in approved budget × 100 Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Final variance
Description This is the percentage deviation between the initial annual budget and the final balance. It gives evidence of the predictive capacity and accuracy of the budgeting activity. This measure is an important aspect of effectiveness of the activity.
Basis for computation All costs with competence in the annual budget.
Formula (Budgeted costs – Balance of costs) (Budgeted costs) × 100 Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Comment This KPI should be applied separately to costs and revenues. When some relevant events occur, deriving from the context (such as change of economics trends) or unforeseen circumstances (such as new rules in GAAP applications or capitalizing policies), this KPI may become not applicable, because the variance is no longer indicating the quality of the activity.
Name Number of deltas generated
Description This is the number of occurrences of delta management activity (see section 4.2.4 for details) generated during forecasting.
Basis for computation Time from official forecast start to end of activity.
Formula # of delta management activity instances generated (an instance is generated for each forecasted service/project out of tolerance).
Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Percentage of forecasts with deltas
Description This is the percentage of forecasting activities affected by the need of managing at least one delta (project and/or service with forecasts deviated from budget and out of tolerance).
Basis for computation Annual budget period or n months rolling.
Formula (# of forecasts affected by deltas to be managed) × 100 (# of forecasts)
Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Percentage of costs managed by deltas
Description This shows the amount of costs managed by exception compared to the initial budget.
Basis for computation Annual budget period.
Formula Sum of all costs approved by delta management process instances Costs included in approved budget × 100 Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Budgeted unit cost of services
Description This measures the cost of each service per unit of consumption when this is applicable.
Basis for computation Each service where unit cost can be calculated.
Formula (budgeted costs of service) (budgeted delivered units of service)× 100 Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Variance of costs of projects/services
Description This measures the difference between the actual and budgeted costs of services/
projects.
Basis for computation Services/projects budgeted and accounted at each closure period.
Formula (actual costs of services/projects) (budgeted costs of services/projects)× 100 Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Comment This KPI may be applied to each service/project separately. The budget should enable the budgeted costs at the closure period to be determined. If this is not available the actual costs of services/projects can be substituted by actual costs of services/projects plus their forecasted costs to completion.
Name Percentage of direct costs
Description This measures the costs that are directly allocated to services/projects.
Basis for computation Services/projects budgeted in an annual budget.
Formula (costs directly allocated to services/projects) (budgeted costs of services/projects) × 100
Polarity Positive.
Budget review
Metrics described for the annual budget may be applied to budget reviews too:
• approval cycles (review)
• delay in budget (review) presentation
• activity costs (review) percentage
• final variance (reviews performed at the same time in each budget cycle, for example first quarter, should be compared to verify trends)
• number of deltas generated (reviews performed at the same time in each budget cycle, for example first quarter, should be compared to verify trends) after review.
7.3.7 Metrics for planning
Metrics for planning are very similar to metrics for budgeting where the basis for computation changes (planning period instead of budget period, etc.). The following are typical KPIs that may be used:
• percentage of planned costs managed
• initial variance
• approval cycles
• delay in plans presentation
• percentage of costs apportioned automatically
• activity costs percentage
• final variance
• number of deltas generated
• percentage of planned costs managed by deltas
• planned unit cost of services
• variance of costs of projects/services
• percentage of direct costs
In addition, a specific KPI for planning may be the following.
Name Frequency of review of cost (and/or apportioning) model
Description This is the elapsed time between a change of cost (and/or apportioning) model and the next review.
Basis for computation Planning period.
Formula Number of day between end and start of planning period Number of reviews of Cost (and/or Apportioning) Model × 100 Polarity Negative (diminishing).
7.3.8 Metrics for periodic forecasting
Name Percentage of services/projects managed
Description This is the percentage of services/projects for which the forecast activity is active among those managed with IT financial management practices.
Basis for computation Projects and services that are managed with IT financial management practices.
Formula (# Services/Projects managed forecasted) × 100 (# Services/Projects)
Polarity Positive.
Name Percentage of forecasts on time
Description This is the percentage of services/projects forecasts prepared by the due date. This measures the project manager’s or service owner’s performances.
Basis for computation Annual budget period or n months rolling.
Formula (# Services/Projects forecasts on time) × 100 (# Services/Projects forecasts prepared) Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Forecast reporting delay
Description This is the delay (days) between the due date for forecast reporting and the actual date.
Basis for computation Time from official forecast start to end of activity.
Formula Date of actual forecast reporting presentation – Scheduled date of forecast reporting presentation.
Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Activity costs percentage
Description This measures the costs of the forecasting activity, compared to those of the managed budget. This is an important aspect of activity efficiency.
Basis for computation Annual budget.
Formula Sum of all costs related to forecast process instances Costs included in approved budget × 100 Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Percentage of costs apportioned automatically
Description This measures the percentage of costs that are automatically apportioned to services/projects.
Basis for computation Forecast.
Formula (forecasted costs automatically apportioned to services/projects) (forecasted costs apportioned to services/projects) × 100
Polarity Positive.
7.3.9 Metrics for delta management
Name Number of requests from passive cycle
Description This measures the number of requests for delta management (corresponding to instances of the activity) generated by the passive cycle (when the required budget is not available).
Basis for computation Annual budget period or n months rolling.
Formula # of requests for delta management raised.
Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Percentage of requests approved
Description This measures the percentage of requests for delta management (corresponding to instances of the activity) with a positive result (approval for delta requested) compared to the total number of requests.
Basis for computation Annual budget period or n months rolling.
Formula # of requests with final approval × 100 Total # of requests processed
Polarity Positive.
Name Delta management lead time
Description This measures the average time required to manage deltas.
Basis for computation Annual budget period or n months rolling.
Formula Σ (Time of approval – time of request)
# of instances of delta management process Polarity Negative (diminishing).
Name Activity costs percentage
Description This measures the costs of the delta management activity, compared to those of the managed budget. This is an important aspect of activity efficiency.
Basis for computation Annual budget.
Formula Sum of all costs related to delta management process instances Costs included in approved budget × 100 Polarity Negative (diminishing).
7.3.10 Metrics for periodic closures
Name Percentage of timesheets on time
Description This measures the percentage of timesheets (the records of time spent to perform activities declared by staff and external resources in providing services and executing projects) that are completed by the due date. This count can be based on people for each period.
Basis for computation Annual budget or n months rolling or period.
Formula # of timesheet completed on time # of timesheet completed × 100
Polarity Positive.
Name Percentage of services/projects on time
Description This measures the percentage of services and/or projects that have costs loaded and verified by the due date. This count may be performed for each period.
Basis for computation Period.
Formula # of services/projects completed on time # of services/projects managed × 100
Polarity Positive.